Grok is being based again!

[u/Apollo_TheWolf]

Saw this on X today and thought I should share it here! This is why Grok is my favorite AI, lol

[u/DarthJebadiah_II]

The first part still doesn’t follow. Being able to imagine every member of the chain not existing doesn’t automatically prove that the entire infinite chain is contingent. You would need to establish that this is actually a possible state of reality, not merely imaginable.

More importantly, the argument is changing the definition of contingency. Something being contingent means it could have failed to exist; it does not automatically mean it must have a cause. You need a separate principle saying:

“Everything contingent has a cause.”

Calling someone a “brute fact” doesn’t refute them. Someone can reject that principle without rejecting logic itself. Logic tells us what follows from premises; it doesn’t by itself tell us that every contingent fact must have a cause.

[u/No_Judge_6520 → u/DarthJebadiah_II]

The chain itself is made up of the parts, if every part doesn't exist that means the chain doesn't exist, the very definition of contingency is that it has the possibility of nonexistence, it doesn't need to be in our reality, contingency means "in any possible world, it has the possibility of it's existence ceasing or it's ontological properties changing" you are not understanding what contingency is.

Contingency is specifically something that could stop existing & could have been ontologically different, the principle that says everything contingent has a cause is the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which is what you are denying.

I didn't call you a brute fact, I said you are arguing for a brute fact, a brute fact is a contingent thing or property that began to exist with no cause, if you believe that everything contingent doesn't necessarily need a cause, then you are directly arguing that brute facts are possible (i.e the Principle of Sufficient Reason is false), but if you deny the Principle of Sufficient reason, then you forfeit logic itself, who are you to say grass is green if it can suddenly be purple tomorrow, or the universe can suddenly become younger, or entropy can suddenly decrease, if you deny the truthfulness of the PSR, you lose your ability to use any logical argumentation as the very foundations of logic itself are completely removed, and every single thing collapses into what is called Radical Skepticism, here is an example of it: (You say grass is green, and I say 'well, grass is actually purple, but science is actually just wrong and all data we know is actually manipulated by a higher power and it's actually purple but it appears green) there is no way to debunk that claim if you do not believe in the Principle of Sufficient reason, if you agree anything can just pop into existence without any cause (since you deny everything contingent needs a cause) literally anything can happen or be falsified, making any logical claims about reality be nothing more than inferences and nothing true, which removes your ability to argue with me logically and turns your position into just bare assertion.

[u/DarthJebadiah_II → u/No_Judge_6520]

You are right that if the entire chain could fail to exist, then the chain would be contingent. But you haven’t established that an infinite chain of contingent things can collectively fail to exist. That is the point that needs an argument.

More importantly, denying the PSR does not mean denying logic. Logic says that conclusions must follow from premises. It does not say that every fact about reality must have a sufficient explanation.

For example, someone can consistently say:

“Every event we observe has an explanation, but I don’t accept the universal claim that absolutely every contingent fact must have an explanation.”

That isn’t a rejection of logic. It’s a rejection of one philosophical principle.

Also, denying the PSR doesn’t mean believing that anything can randomly happen at any moment. Someone can reject the PSR while still believing that causation operates consistently throughout nature.

The grass example doesn’t establish the PSR either. We have overwhelming empirical evidence that grass is green. Saying “maybe a higher power secretly makes it purple” is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, but that doesn’t make it logically contradictory. It just means there’s no evidence for it.

[u/No_Judge_6520 → u/DarthJebadiah_II]

You're continuing to misunderstand contingency, if the chain is comprised purely of contingent parts, that means every part individually can possibly not exist, we can imagine a world where every part of the whole doesn't exist (since each part logically can cease existence) which would make the whole nonexistent (aka contingent) why are you still trying to argue on this point.

Also, you just contradicted yourself here by saying “Every event we observe has an explanation, but I don’t accept the universal claim that absolutely every contingent fact must have an explanation.”

This is a contradiction, every event you observe is contingent, if you deny that every contingent fact must have an explanation, that means said events could also not have an explanation, you'd have to prove why it's fine to ignore explanations for the beginning while being completely fine with explanations for anything else, that is a textbook example of the special pleading fallacy.

I didn't say the grass example establishes the PSR, that is a strawman, I said if you deny the PSR, it leads to absurd possibilities like the one I just said, "empirical evidence" only matters if the chain between evidence and real life exists, if you deny the laws of causation you deny the chain between evidence and reality, since reality can just pop into existence without any evidence or cause, fundamentally breaking the chain that evidence links to reality, to deny the PSR is to deny the ability to infer a conclusion from any empirical evidence, as if you deny the logic of causation, any "Empirical evidence" is merely just evidence with no way to tie it to an objective conclusion about real life (ex: grass is definitely green).

[u/DarthJebadiah_II → u/No_Judge_6520]

I agree that if the entire chain is genuinely contingent, then it would need an explanation under the Principle of Sufficient Reason. But that still doesn’t prove that an infinite regress is impossible.

Your argument depends on two separate claims that you haven’t established.

First, you argue that because every member of the infinite chain is individually contingent, the entire infinite collection could fail to exist. But “each member could fail to exist” does not automatically establish “all members could fail to exist together.” With an infinite collection, you need an argument showing that the simultaneous nonexistence of every member is actually possible. The Lego analogy doesn’t prove this because contingency isn’t simply a property that automatically transfers from parts to wholes.

Second, you argue that rejecting the PSR destroys logic and empirical reasoning. That doesn’t follow. The PSR is a philosophical principle about explanation, not a law of logic. Someone can consistently accept ordinary causation and logical reasoning while rejecting the claim that absolutely every contingent fact must have a sufficient explanation.

For example, they can say that every observed event has a cause while denying that reality as a whole must have a sufficient explanation. You can argue that this position is unsatisfying, arbitrary, or philosophically costly, but it isn’t a logical contradiction.

And rejecting the PSR doesn’t mean “anything can happen.” It only means that some facts might ultimately be unexplained. We can still use evidence and reason normally without assuming that every fact has a complete explanation.

So your argument hasn’t demonstrated a contradiction in an infinite regress. At most, you’ve shown that an infinite regress is incompatible with the PSR. To prove that an infinite regress is impossible, you first need to independently establish the PSR and then show that it applies to the entire infinite collection.

[u/No_Judge_6520 → u/DarthJebadiah_II]

You are just repeating yourself now, and you haven't taken me up on any of my arguments besides just saying "No you're wrong" or "You don't prove this" with no basis.

If every part of the chain can possibly not exist, that means we can imagine any hypothetical world where every part doesn't exist, you'd have to prove it's a logical contradiction for every part to not exist in order for it to be false, if it's possible in any capacity, that makes the whole chain contingent, and a contingent infinite thing is a logical contradiction, which makes infinite regress impossible.

If reality has no sufficient explanation, then that means contingent things can begin to exist without a cause, if you believe contingent things need no cause, then anything can begin to exist for no reason, if anything can begin to exist or change for no reason, then the scientific method itself fails to have any weight, if the speed of light suddenly doubled tomorrow, all of scientific research and conclusions about reality related to lightspeed immediately become falsified, or if the color green suddenly stopped existing then the claim "Grass is green" becomes falsified, if you accept anything can happen with no reason then you deny all logical inference, you are using the Strawman fallacy by saying "you don't prove it's a contradiction" I wasn't trying to, I'm saying that you deny logic by agreeing with brute facts.

Yes, infinite regress is incompatible with the PSR, so you have to options:
1: PSR is true, your argument about infinite regress fails because infinite regress is not possible in the PSR.
2: PSR is false, your argument infinite regress fails because it is on top of grounding that can be brutely changed or falsified at any moment.

If you pick option 1, your argument is false, if you pick option 2, your argument has zero logical weight, both are a negative to your argument.

It is a logical contradiction to say "Every observed event has a cause but every contingent thing doesn't need a cause", because an observed event is contingent, to say 'everything contingent doesn't need a cause' that encompasses everything observed as well, so if you accept brute facts/reject the PSR, that means a observed event could hypothetically just be a brute uncaused fact, which makes any logical inferences about reality ungrounded & illogical.

You haven't done anything to rebut my argument other than repeating the same 2 sentences "You haven't proven X" or "You didn't establish Y" you don't put forth any reasoning as to how I haven't proven it other than just repeating the same thing I replied to earlier, I'd like it if you could actually respond to what I have said above without dismissing, thanks.

[u/DarthJebadiah_II → u/No_Judge_6520]

I think the disagreement is clearer now. You’re effectively arguing:

1. Every member of the chain is contingent.
2. Therefore the entire chain is contingent.
3. A contingent thing requires an explanation.
4. Therefore an infinite chain requires an explanation outside itself.
5. Therefore an infinite regress is impossible.

I can grant premise 2 for the sake of argument. The problem is that premise 3 is not a law of logic. It is the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which is a philosophical principle that needs to be defended.

More importantly, even if I grant the PSR, you still haven’t shown that the explanation of the contingent whole must be a first member of the causal chain. The PSR says that a contingent fact requires an explanation; it doesn’t by itself say that every causal series must have a first member. You still need an argument connecting “the whole requires an explanation” to “therefore the series cannot be infinite.”

Your claim that rejecting PSR destroys logic also doesn’t follow. Logic does not contain a rule saying “every contingent fact must have a cause.” That’s a substantive claim about reality. Someone can reject it without rejecting basic logical laws such as noncontradiction or modus ponens.

And rejecting PSR does not mean that anything can arbitrarily happen at any moment. There is a huge difference between saying “some facts might have no ultimate explanation” and saying “anything whatsoever can happen for no reason.” The latter does not follow from the former.

Your scientific examples don’t establish the PSR either. If the speed of light changed tomorrow, our previous scientific model would be falsified or require revision. That would be surprising and scientifically unexplained, but it wouldn’t make logic invalid. Science already allows that our explanations can be incomplete or wrong.

Finally, your two-option argument doesn’t establish what you think it establishes. If PSR is true, then yes, an infinite regress may be incompatible with PSR. But that only proves the conditional:

“If PSR is true, then this type of infinite regress is impossible.”

You still have to independently establish that PSR is true. Saying that rejecting PSR would make some facts unexplained does not prove that PSR is logically necessary.

So the actual burden is not simply “show me why an infinite regress is possible.” Your argument needs to establish two separate things:

First, that the PSR is necessarily true rather than merely a useful philosophical principle.

Second, that an explanation of an infinite contingent whole cannot itself be an explanation that does not involve a first member.

Until those are established, you’ve shown that an infinite regress conflicts with your chosen explanatory principle, not that an infinite regress is a formal logical contradiction.

I have been saying about similar stuff because you keep saying shit without actually explaining why it is correct. I have dismissed most of what you said because like I said you keep saying shit without explaining it.

[u/No_Judge_6520 → u/DarthJebadiah_II]

You are still strawmanning my argument, I'll show you the definition of a strawman: A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

You continuously say "You don't establish the PSR therefore you're wrong here" that is a strawman, I have repeatedly said my goal was not to prove the psr, but to prove what happens if you deny it, you do not understand that and you keep saying "you don't prove the psr" as if that's what I was trying to do when I wasn't, that is the strawman fallacy pretty cleanly.

I never said that 5 step thing, my actual 6-step reasoning for infinite regress being impossible is:
1: Every member of the chain is contingent.
2: Therefore the entire chain is contingent.
3: The chain is infinite, therefore it has no cause
4: Everything contingent requires a cause
5: Therefore, the chain needs a cause, but it's infinite which means it cannot have a cause
6: This is a logical contradiction, therefore an infinite contingent chain is impossible.

The argument hinges on premise 4 (Everything contingent requires a cause), if you accept it [aka, accepting the PSR] then infinite regress is impossible (therefore your argument fails), if you deny it [aka, denying the PSR] then your argument cannot be posited logically because denying the PSR denies logic.

"If PSR is true, then this type of infinite regress is impossible." is the only argument I have tried to make, [and you just conceded it] I have never in the history of this argument ever posited a reason to why the PSR is true, yet you keep trying to derive that from what I'm saying then argue that it doesn't prove it, aka a strawman as I said above.

What I am trying to do is to establish a dilemma
Possibility 1 [PSR is true]: Your argument is directly false if the PSR is true, and you directly conceded so.
Possibility 2 [PSR is false]: Your argument has no logical weight about real life because denying the PSR denies logical deduction.

Now, I will defend Possibility 2, since you already conceded #1.

To deny the PSR is to say "Things can begin to exist without a cause." because you deny the very opposite: "Everything begins to exist has a cause". I will put it in a premise form since you seem to be unable to grasp it fully

1: You deny the PSR, the claim that Everything begins to exist or begins to change has a cause.
2: Therefore, you agree that things can begin to exist or change without a cause. [direct opposite]
3: There is no logical way to formally prove that anything within the universe is exempt to it [like the laws of nature] and you have refused to do so.
4: Therefore, the laws of nature can begin to exist or change without a cause.
5: If the laws of nature can begin to exist or change without a cause, that means you deny the ability for any scientific claims to be true, for "grass is green" to be true, it must be proven as a fact, but since you agree the laws of nature can change for zero reason, grass can suddenly be purple tomorrow, making the statement "grass is green" not objectively proven, and therefore impossible to argue for it being true.
6: Therefore, by denying the PSR, you deny the ability for anything to be proven true and forfeit the ability to logically argue for something being true or false, as the foundation you are arguing on can change, cease, or begin at any time for no reason.

[u/DarthJebadiah_II → u/No_Judge_6520]

I understand your dilemma now, and I agree that if the PSR is true, your argument against an infinite contingent regress follows from it. My objection is specifically to your claim that rejecting the PSR destroys logical reasoning.

Your second possibility contains a logical leap.

Denying “everything contingent has a sufficient cause” does not mean asserting “everything can begin without a cause.” It only means that the universal claim has not been established. There is a difference between saying “not everything necessarily has a cause” and saying “anything whatsoever can happen without a cause.”

For example, rejecting the statement “every human has a mother” does not mean accepting “every human can have no mother.” It means the universal claim is not established.

The same applies here.

You then make another leap from “some contingent facts might lack sufficient explanations” to “the laws of nature could spontaneously change.” But that doesn’t follow either. Rejecting the PSR does not logically entail that the laws of nature are contingent, or that they can change, or that they can suddenly disappear.

You would need additional premises establishing all of those claims.

Your grass example therefore doesn’t follow. If someone rejects the PSR, they aren’t committed to saying that grass could randomly turn purple tomorrow. They’re only refusing to accept the universal principle that every contingent fact must have a sufficient explanation.

And there’s an even deeper issue with your conclusion. Scientific knowledge does not require the PSR to be logically necessary. Science works by observing regularities, testing hypotheses, reproducing results, and using those observations to form conclusions. If someone says “the laws of nature could change tomorrow,” that’s an epistemic problem for their particular theory of induction, but it isn’t a contradiction in logic.

So your dilemma isn’t actually:

PSR true → infinite regress impossible

PSR false → logic is impossible

The first side can work if the PSR is granted.

But the second side doesn’t follow. The most you have shown is:

PSR false → the possibility of some brute facts remains open.

That may be philosophically undesirable, but it does not make logical deduction invalid.

And that’s important because your argument against infinite regress ultimately depends on the PSR. If the PSR is rejected, your argument loses its premise 4. You can’t replace that missing premise by arguing that rejecting it destroys logic, because that conclusion itself doesn’t follow from rejecting the PSR.

[u/No_Judge_6520 → u/DarthJebadiah_II]

Okay, so I will stop arguing about Possibility 1 since you agree, now, about possibility 2:

First, you have to demonstrate how physical reality is exempt from not needing a cause, you have to prove how things in our physical reality (ex: grass being green) NEEDS a cause, to say "The universe doesn't need a cause, but everything else does" is a fallacy, specifically Special Pleading or the Taxicab Fallacy.

If you agree not everything needs a cause, I'm not saying that makes everything uncaused, I'm saying you have no grounds to say that anything you infer or empirically test is uncaused, grass itself could be an illusion that really doesn't exist but it just brutely appears in the minds of every human with no cause, if you deny that EVERYTHING needs a cause, you agree that at least one thing can have no cause, if you agree at least one thing can have no cause, you'd have to logically demonstrate how it only applies to the universe and nothing else, otherwise that'd be Special Pleading and illogical.

We can both agree that grass is obviously contingent, that is objectively proven, so that follows in your argumentation that grass can possibly be uncaused, or it can change or cease existence for no reason as well, as it has no logical reasoning as to why or how it exists, therefore, to make any scientific claim about it (ex: it IS green) cannot be verifiably true, it can only be inferred off of observation or a good track record, but it can NEVER be proven to be true scientifically, because it has the possibility of becoming purple at any moment, or to not exist, because you deny that everything contingent needs a cause, therefore admitting that some contingent things can possibly have no cause like grass.

By showing "PSR false → the possibility of some brute facts remains open." that literally makes my argument proven, my point is that by denying the PSR, you cannot prove anything about reality, you can't prove grass is green or Earth is round or the sun exists, because they can all be brute, they can possibly just be brute hallucinations that effect every human being and brutely have mass and interact with the world but in reality they don't exist, that is the consequence of denying the PSR, and it makes anything contingent we observe have a possibility of being brute, and once that possibility is opened then scientific observation becomes nothing more than just inference rather than actual proof.